Chapter Summary

• Although the arguments for Psychology in the courtroom were first made in the early 1900s, it is only more recently that the testimony of psychologists has become more widespread in the court system.
• When called as an expert witness, psychologists typically act in one of four roles: (1) an experimental role, (2) a clinical (assessment) role (3) an actuarial role and (4) an advisory role.
• The psychological research into the functioning of juries has been concerned with how expert evidence may influence jury decisions, extraevidential influences on jury decisions, the composition of the jury and jury decision-making.
• The court will pass sentence on the guilty. Along with other disciplines, Psychology has considered the purposes of sentencing in terms of retribution, incapacitation of the offender, deterrence to others, correction of the offender’s wrongdoing and restoration and reparation to victims.
• A great deal of time and public money is spent on the process of determining guilt or innocence, then on those agencies charged with managing those who the courts find guilty. The effectiveness of this process is an important issue.

Reading List

Borgida, E. & Fiske, S. T. (Eds). (2008). Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Brewer, N., & Williams, K. D. (Eds.). (2005). Psychology and law: An empirical perspective. New York: The Guildford Press.

Cohen, M. A. (2005). The costs of crime and justice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Finkel, N. J., & Parrott, W. G. (2006). Emotions and culpability: How the law is at odds with psychology, jurors, and itself. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. C. (1998). Forensic psychology: A guide to practice. London: Routledge.

Kapardis, A. (2010). Psychology and law: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kline, D., & Mitchell, G. (Eds.). (2010). The psychology of judicial decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krauss, D. A., & Lieberman, J. D. (Eds.). (2009). Psychological expertise in court. Psychology in the courtroom, Vol. II. Farnham, Surry: Ashgate Publishing.

Lieberman, J. D., & Krauss, D. A. (Eds.). (2009). Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process. Psychology in the courtroom, Vol. I. Farnham, Surry: Ashgate Publishing.

Saks, M. (1997). What do jury experiments tell us about how juries (should) make decisions? Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Review, 6, 1–53.

Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (Eds.). (2009). Psychological science in the courtroom: Consensus and controversy. New York: The Guildford Press.

Weblinks

Sentencing Council (provides sentencing guidelines): http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing-guidelines.htm

The Probation Service for England and Wales: http://www.nationalprobationservice.co.uk/

International Centre for Prison Studies is a source of a fantastic amount of information:

http://www.prisonstudies.org/

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/

The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders is a charity that aims to work with offenders to reduce their offending: http://www.nacro.org.uk/

Study Questions

Open Questions

Why is it difficult for researchers to conduct empirical studies in the courtroom?

What are the four roles, as described by Haward, which may be taken by the psychologist in the courtroom?

Do you agree that psychology is just a matter of common sense and so the court does not need psychologists to explain matters psychological?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having juries smaller than the traditional 12 members?

Why can judicial instructions be difficult for the jury to follow?

How likely is it that all judges will react in the same way to all cases?